Ignoring the Creator's Original Intent

"Marriage" signifies a coming together, for example, as Aldous Huxley meant when he wrote "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell."

And the idea of a man and a woman were the farthest thing from the mind of C.S. Lewis when he countered with "The Great Divorce."

Mr Mark, you've missed the mark yet again. Since I'd only be reiterating what I've already said, I'll let you have the last word.

Dear Queen -

I'm going to go ahead and assume that the writers for On Faith come up with their own titles for their articles. Ergo, my statement about NTW's using the term "original intent" stands.

As to NTW's second paragraph, he writes:

"Of course, I also believe that there is something about the male-plus-female-for-life business which reflects part of the deep structure of the created order, in which the creator makes and keeps promises to the creation and to his human creatures."

Again, I ask the question: where was god's "promise" to his "human creatures" in the first 96% of our species' existence? Unless you want to believe that the fable of Adam & Eve is literally true, and that the earth has only been around for 6,000 years and mankind around for just a few days less than that, then how do you account for god's TOTAL INDIFFERENCE to "his human creations" over the first 96,000-194,000 years of our species' existence? Perhaps god's "deep structure of the created order" included tens of thousands of years of mankind serving as the main course in the diets of more than a few non-human carnivores?

Your thoughts?

Many biblical scholars have also concluded that the Matt 19:12 was not said by the historic Jesus but was a later addition by some author/translator. Note that this passage is only found in Matthew's Gospel.

That was soooo beautiful. . .
if only it made sence

Here is an interesting bible passage that pertains to this topic:

Matthew 19:8-12

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Reading verse 12 carefully, I see a number of interpretations of this scripture:

1) 'Eunuchs' refers to only castrated males who do not have sex with females.

2) 'Eunuchs' refers to all males who do not have sex with females (which can include homosexual males -- i.e. those that are "born that way").

So which is it??? I can find bible scholars who will argue either interpretation. Whether you consider the bible inspired or not, perfect or error-prone, this passage certainly casts reasonable doubt on the anti-homosexual stance that so many Christians take...

Why did the Creator make gay people? For neochristians to torment? (Don't give me you cherry-picked Leviticus bile. Homosexuality occurs naturally in both man and animals)

It is interesting to see what happens to hate mongers when they eventually have a gay child or grandchild al la the repugnant Dick Cheney. I'm sure he guards at least his public comments a lot more now than he did before his daughters were born.

Many gays don't choose to be gay but that is the way God made them (who would prefer to be gay in homophobic Jesuslandia?) Mormons tried to electroshock gays to "cure" them without, by the way, positive results. The return of the leaders of gay "rehabilitation" groups to gay bars in Washington DC is another example of the fallicy of this misguided prejudice. Waterboard Haggard to see if he is really "cured"

Once again, IMO homosexuality is yucky.

((((((Yawn)))))))

Paganplace,

You do wax long.

Would be ok....if you were making any sense.

I don't think most others are here saying 'Oh instruct me paganplace...youre always right...'

Your name seems to be on alot of threads, alot of the time. Get a life, take a walk, and please do us all a favor..don't present yourself as one who needs to correct most Christians.

Pffffft

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Don't quote me on that, PaganPlace. I was quoting the poster using the name "Another View." My response to Another View and the snippet you quoted is below the part in quotation marks that you attributed to me.

I'm strongly for same-sex marriage. Which you'd expect, since I'm a (straight) gay rights activist.

I've been enjoying your comments.

" Darian:

"Another View said: "He knows what the outcome such orientation would eventually bring: The elimination of mankind."

Is there some kind of cognitive interrupt somewhere in that 'Adam and Eve' theology which leads people to panic so much at the idea that 'If Anyone is Gay, Everyone Will Be Gay?'

You project, sirs.

Some folks aren't unable to conceive of the fact that 'anybody' is not the same as 'everybody.'

As for reality,

Call me next baby shortage.

Phbbbbt.

Hi, there. :)

"The scriptures tell us that Jesus Christ (who is the Word, mentioned in John 1), is the same yesterday, today and forever."

You do realize, of course, that language, even, if not especially that written in a book, is *not?*

You're the one claiming there's something spiritually, especially, and exclusively good about your current translation and interpretation about words, ...time to show the good fruits, instead of just calling people 'fruits' in that detrimental way.

You may believe 'words' are eternal.

Our reading of them is not. You Christians weren't even really *allowed* to read them for yourselves till pretty recently.

People who can't even spell in the language they are *born* to keep claiming they have the authority to abuse me on some presumed basis that a book says I'm going to Hell anyway.

Pardon if I'm not impressed with your reading comprehension skills to begin with.

That said, on to more reasoned posters:

GK Chesterton:

"Pagan Place - You make good points. I have a heavy heart over anyone (heteroxual or homosexual) who feels excluded from the life of a Christian faith community."

Do not think, as some believe, that that's *really* the be-all and end-all of existence.

So much BS is justified in people's minds as if making someone Christian or Muslim is all that actually really matters.

It is not. Have some faith that even *your* God is not that small or petty.

There are still effects of what you teach. Even if ou soft-pedal it, it makes little difference to kids born queer.

All that does is make self-destruction more seductive. It doesn't ennoble the spirits of those we live among. It just makes them vulnerable to whatever some extremist preacher says, cause someone *softly* wound up their sense of value and humanity with *passive-aggressive* Biblical readings, rather than overtly-aggressive ones.

Maybe, trust a Pagan on this. I have *nothing* to lose by trying to tell you you're hurting people. If this were some damn competition to 'buy' or 'sell' souls, and I were evil, I'd have no interest in trying to help you un-ahem your hurtful theology.

Or say where it's hurtful where you don't even look or know.

If I were trying to hurt you, or Christianity, I would let you cruise on as is: you're already presenting *this* priestess,among many others, with more would-be 'converts' than we can really minister to.

Your Bible presents us as enemies like that.

I say, this is not so. I say, for the sake of Pity or Mercy, if not Liberty, or 'Pete,' .. By the Gods you swear by, look at where this denial puts your kids.

What it drives people afraid for their souls to do to innocents.

What perversions of *Justice* it leads you to support, even if it means voting for people you *know* are greedy and callous.

Do you understand that if these people can take the mental image of your God and make you assent to *just one* injustice, however justified you may think it is, ...That it never ends?

I speak not out of particular disbelief for your Go, or savior, or nothing like that, here.

I speak against those that would *use* the desire for that faith against the innocent... Then, once you've supported an injustice, make you feel you must *commit* to justifying and intensifying that injustice, or else you've done wrong and must suffer eternally like the scapegoats.

You believe your Jesus came to set you free for something.

OK.

Not an unfamiliar motif to Pagans and Pagan peoples.

Do not turn his efforts into a cargo cult, and an altar of 'sin' upon which you would sacrifice the lives and humanity of the innocent.

You Christians have turned your 'Savior' into an idol. An altar upon which you sacrifice so much humanity to propitiate your fear of 'sin,' whoever it hurts.

However softly you say, 'You're damned if you don't 'be straight'

Same damnable thing.

Sure, I'm an 'unbeliever' in your God as the 'one and only way,' your obsessive need for permanence and judgement and certainty and someone to blame for whatever goes wrong when your obsessive desire for certainty *hurts real people you should know you're hurting when they cry out 'OW!'

I'm not a disbeliever in 'God.'

I'm a disbeliever in the 'God' of the 'mighty righteous' that cry the triumph of the 'Lord while pinning you, till you put a knuckle inside their righteous kneecap.

Kinda thought yer Jesus was supposed to be like that, too.

Not so much, looks like.

Too many broken bodies ...and cerebella, been made by 'righteous' people that 'righteously' take what you teach and hurt people horribly, thinking it's 'godly...' slept well the night they hurt those who don't usually get up on the Net and talk comfy theology.

Understand, GK? So often Christians claim that 'conscience' is why queer people might feel bad after a life of being bashed and degraded.

It's not their conscience I worry about.

It's the *lack* of conscience of those who have some idea that 'gay marriage' is just a word or an abstraction, or a logical argument to assuage their own doubts about what they were taught.

Guilty conscience needs no accuser.

Who's putting whom on 'trial' here, just to be treated as real humans?

"The gays and lesbians who attend my particular church feel welcomed even though our denomination's official stance is that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching."

Are they welcome, or begging?

"For that matter, heterosexuals who have been unfaithful in their marriage covenants also feel welcomed even though my denommination views infidelity in marriage relationships as incompatable with Christian teaching."

For that matter? If it's all the same, why did it take you that time to think of it?

'Sure, gay people are born morally-equivalent to oathbreakers, but it's fine. Yay.'

Your God needs to do better, if that's what you speak for.

" It's not that these issues are ignored but that God's love and grace are emphasized on a consistent basis throughout the congregation which is why I attend this particular church."

Ah, God's Grace, 'In spite' of your inherent uncleanliness.... How comforting and spiritual.

Here, confused chile, let Reverend help you.

Pbbbht.

"Admittedly, I'm sure that some have not felt the same way and as a Christian who tries to be faithful to the biblical witness, this weighs on me greatly."

Gods know it *should,* GK.

Ever consider this ain't about *spin?*

"Anyway, I respect your views on this issue but also want to point out that not all congregations send the damning to hell (or whitholding heaven) message that you reference in your post."

I suppose we'll see how much 'respect' there is for these views.

You disavow certain ideas, GK.

Are you so sure that's not what you are teaching, anyway?

Kids aren't stupid.

Another View said: "He knows what the outcome such orientation would eventually bring: The elimination of mankind."

He never said that. He didn't condemn homosexuals at all. And he spoke up when he wanted to condemn something or someone. And it isn't true. Many of my gay friends have children. Children they conceived the my straight, infertile friends do.

Look around...we're not exactly running out of people. There have always been gay people. There always will be gay people. Letting gay people marry doesn't mean we will run out of people. It just means all the people, we the people, will have the same marriage rights. We will all be able to marry the consenting, non-closely-related adult of our choice. It works well here in MA.

Conversely, not letting gay people marry doesn't stop them from having children. It just denies those children and their parents the same rights and protections the rest of us have. It just stigmatizes them.

Mr Tutu,

You are correct in say that, no, our Lord and Saviour would never have joined in persecuting anyone. Rather, at times, his words were encouraging, yet firm - go, and sin no more.

The scriptures tell us that Jesus Christ (who is the Word, mentioned in John 1), is the same yesterday, today and forever. This is a widely overlooked fact of scripture. Additionally, various places in scripture warn against homosexual behavior..orientation as you put it. If the Word is the same always, then it seems mankind has/is trying to be the one who decides the matter over him by saying -- He isn't (the same). This is the choice that was made in Eden with regard to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We have, from the very start, decided on our own what is good and evil. And here we are today.

To say Christ would persecute such is, as you say, not what Christ would do. On the other hand, according to inspired scripture, neither would he condone it. He knows what the outcome such orientation would eventually bring: The elimination of mankind. Exactly what the adversary wants. His (Jesus's) point in the matter is the epitome of love. He does not want us to destroy oursleves.

Why there's nothing to that bishop, change the of meaning of word not necessary. Simply *remove* the word *marriage* from all laws of the land thus leaving the word exclusively in the hands of religion operators. Note that such words as *husband and wife* must also be removed. Taxes bishop! Taxes!

Here's a plan. Let's remove the word *religion* from all the laws of the land. I know that jolly old England enjoys an amicable church state relationship where the state is the church or something like that. Here in the colonies we say we want to change that. Of course we have more than a few loyalists left over from when George was head of the church. Dad gummed is an expression dating the revolution used to describe rebels. Dad gummed gays you say?

Mr Mark replied to me, saying, "My objection can't disappear for the simple fact that Wright isn't talking only about the period of recorded human history, but all of man's existence. How do I know that? Why, through the title he provided for his column, that's how: 'Ignoring the Creator's Original Intent.'"

First, it is quite possible that the publisher rather than the author selected the title for this essay.

Second, there are two lines of argument in this piece -- a broad, socio-historical argument that does not rely on one religious tradition (first paragraph), and an argument specifically related to Wright's Christian convictions (second paragraph). The transition between the two is in the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Of course, I also believe (i.e., in addition to the separate argument just presented) that there is something about the ... the created order."

In short, I think your objection still falls flat if we read Wright rightly.

Brian Le responded to me, "'Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman' is the popular, dominant view all over America (even in CA!). It is the very small group of black-robed ones who forced an unpopular view on the California people."

40% is not a majority, but it is not "unpopular" either.

In any case, my point was that it is not our job as Christians to make the general populace moral by enforcing our biblical/traditional code of conduct. Our job, as God's instruments for persuading heart and mind, is to make them holy Christians, not to make them holy pagans. We should concentrate our efforts locally -- on our neighbors -- to build consensus by empathy and persuasion, rather than nationally by legislation. (Consider the early church before Constantine or the church in China today.)

We live in a modern, pluralistic Babylon, not an ancient Israelite theocracy or a "Christian nation."

I commend you for your insight and thank you for writing such an incredible article on what marriage really is.

Continue to stand strong and may Christ bless you for your work.

The writer provides a simple yet profound explanation of the man's understanding of God's intent and man's intransigence.
The apologists here, trying to propound a relativist logic or reason seek to break down the argument but fail. Sadness pervades my soul for them.
As for the argument that "things have changed" since the concept of marriage was laid down, consider:
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new?" It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow.
Without guidance we are fated to make the same mistakes over and over and over again. No matter how smart and up-to-date you think you are, it is our nature.

GK Chesterson said:
"Anyway, I respect your views on this issue but also want to point out that not all congregations send the damning to hell (or whitholding heaven) message that you reference in your post."

Given the discussion, I am going to assume when you say "all congregations," you are speaking of all Christian congregations. And that's an important point, I think. Using the same Bible, different groups come up with vastly interpretations of such big issues as whether or not there is a hell, what happens after we die, whether or not different things are sins, how to avoid hell and get into heaven, and even on whether or not it is acceptable to divorce and remarry. And even, as we know, whether or not homosexuality is a sin. They can all make their respective cases scripturally, and I am sure they all believe they're right, and are in accordance with God. But they can't all be if they believe conflicting things.

That's yet another reason (the first being separation of church and state) this one book has no place in determining our laws. It's wrong to impose one's religious beliefs on others.

Hello, All -- I suggest you go over to Bishop Chane's essay on the same subject.

He would like to see the church get out of its role in government sanctioned marriage and instead just bless any union the church is asked to and sees fit to bless.

Pagan Place - You make good points. I have a heavy heart over anyone (heteroxual or homosexual) who feels excluded from the life of a Christian faith community.

The gays and lesbians who attend my particular church feel welcomed even though our denomination's official stance is that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. For that matter, heterosexuals who have been unfaithful in their marriage covenants also feel welcomed even though my denommination views infidelity in marriage relationships as incompatable with Christian teaching. It's not that these issues are ignored but that God's love and grace are emphasized on a consistent basis throughout the congregation which is why I attend this particular church.

Admittedly, I'm sure that some have not felt the same way and as a Christian who tries to be faithful to the biblical witness, this weighs on me greatly.

Anyway, I respect your views on this issue but also want to point out that not all congregations send the damning to hell (or whitholding heaven) message that you reference in your post.

If you believe your Creator's intent was for queer people to suffer injustice at the hands of the self-righteous, Bishop, you live in a sad and unjust universe.

It seems to be a profound and recurring difficulty in your religion, being so monolithic about everything. One book, one model for human behavior, one set of laws, one form of 'Divine Intent,' even one mysteriously-appearing-and absolutely-judged life for every being.... always, of course, taking the prejudices of the time and quoting the latest translation of a book as 'The one and only way it always was.'

That's a weakness.

Every child seems to question this 'Divine intent,' of making everyone, then claiming they were 'sinners' for how they were made.

That leads to everyone looking for a scapegoat to throw into the 'lake of fire,' it seems.

If you think it's 'Divine intent' to teach what you do, to claim you 'know good and evil,' to justify depriving people who I assure you are as innately queer as the Mother pleases, of even the very hope you insist is the only human completion, ...an intimate life-partner,

Then we have a problem. Either you mischaracterize Divine intent, or you live in a world ruled by a very incompetent and/or sadistic God.

Or self-proclaimed voices, thereof.

Do you have any idea, Bishop, how much self-destruction ideas like that condition into queer kids? Would you like a body count?

You can dress it up as being about 'behavior' or 'choice' all you like, it doesn't change the effects on parents and kids when you claim the whole universe is against someone for how they were made and how they feel. To turn their very capacity for love and intimacy into fear and shame and scorn.

Don't call it 'God.'

I say as humbly as I can that Gods have been with me all my life, and even then, what you teach is no way for a kid to have to live. I like to think I was helpful to a good number, straight, gay, or otherwise, in this regard, but, I've known so many who just didn't make it.

If that's your God's 'intent,' then we got a problem. Apart from personally knowing the world don't work in the way homophobes and authoritarians say, well, forget about taking any offered 'eternal rewards' for being part of so great an injustice.

So much pain imposed on so many. Over so abstract an idea as a book's interpretation of 'sin.'

Some say it's 'God's intent' that gay people be tormented by the 'righteous' into suicide and, by your own doctrines, damnation.

I say whatever you think is in your heaven ain't worth my soul like that.

Blessed are the persecuted

On race my faith told me that each of us is of inestimable worth since each is created in the image of God.

Thus this worth is intrinsic and not dependent on such irrelevancies as skin color or ethnicity. Thus it was totally unacceptable, just as a matter of justice, to penalize people about something they could nothing, a given, their ethnicity, their race.

Equally my faith convinced me that it was fundamentally unjust to penalize individuals for their gender and so sexism was as unacceptable as racism ever was.

It is being consistent to assert that I cannot condone penalizing someone for something about which she or he can do nothing. It would be bizarre in the extreme for a person to choose to be gay or lesbian in a set-up that is so homophobic.

I believe that sexual orientation is as much a given as ethnicity or gender. Thus the same principle would apply that ruled out racism and sexism as unjust.

In every instance that we have in the Gospels, Jesus sides with those who are discriminated against, who are persecuted. It seems a bizarre hermeneutics that would assert that in this one case, that of gay and lesbian persons, Jesus would join those who persecute, denigrate and oppress an already persecuted minority. That would be a Jesus I could not worship.

I would aver that the same standards of behaviour should be expected of gay and lesbian persons as apply to those who are sexually heterogeneous -- no promiscuity, fidelity to one partner in the relationship, that is all.

Why are we generating so much heat over this issue at a time when the world is groaning under the burden of dehumanizing poverty, when disease -- especially HIV/Aids -- is devastating whole communities, when conflicts are sowing mayhem and carnage?

God must be weeping.

Posted by Desmond Tutu on February 28, 2007 7:34 AM

Posted on May 23, 2008 13:59

Queen:
Lepidopteryx said, "However, when the law calls two similar entities by different names, it makes them legally separate entities, and it has been well established that separate is not equal. So to say that a 'registered domestic partnership' is the legal equivalent of a 'marriage' is disingenuous."

What if we legally called all unions -- regardless of the sexes of the persons involved -- "registered domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" or whatever?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All unions of consenting adults, regardless of gender, need to have the same name - call it "civil union," call it "registered partnership," call it "marriage," call it "Leslie." Just call them all by the same name and ascribe the same state and federal rights and full faith and credit to those rights across the board.

Brian Le, just to mention, is not the same as the Brian who posted before. I obviously need a new handle. :)

BRIAN, not sure where you got your numbers and I am not so sure about your conclusion either. This link: http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm provides a summary of various recent polling data that says a very large minority of americans (generally better than 40%) view gay marriage / union favorably -- Not just the folks in black robes.

"not top down (writing legislation to enforce an unpopular view)"

This is funny. The view may be unpopular to some, or many, but the people of state after state are passing laws defining their view of marriage on the order of 60, 70, 80%. The California law proiding the overturned marriage definition passed with 61%.

"Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" is the popular, dominant view all over America (even in CA!). It is the very small group of black-robed ones who forced an unpopular view on the California people.

The operative issue is equality, including the words used but not hung up on which words are the terms used in civil law.

-----------------------------

Terminology and definition are EVERYTHING in jurisprudence and law.

The terms must be the same to have equal weight.

The operative issue is equality, including the words used but not hung up on which words are the terms used in civil law.

-----------------------------

Terminology and definition are EVERYTHING in jurisprudence and law.

Queen:

Yes, eliminate 'marriage' as a term in civil law. It can then revert to the religious domain in which the state has no interest. The operative issue is equality, including the words used but not hung up on which words are the terms used in civil law. If 'marriage' appears in a statute as a status recognized by the state, then that status must be recognized equally for all citizens. If 'civil union' is the operative phrase, then that status must be available equally. Don't care about what terms are used as long as they are the same terms for everyone.

And I do believe that states, governments, etc., have a responsibility to order their bit of the world in accordance with the creator's will for creation. (No, I don't mean 'theocracy' as normally conceived... but this would get us into political theology.)

---------------------------------

You can't disconnect yourself from political theology that easily, Bishop. Your presence in Britain's upper chamber situates you right in the middle of it. And where "I believe" you and your colleagues should not be.

And I do believe that states, governments, etc., have a responsibility to order their bit of the world in accordance with the creator's will for creation. (No, I don't mean 'theocracy' as normally conceived... but this would get us into political theology.)

---------------------------------

You can't disconnect yourself from political theology that easily, Bishop. Your presence in Britain's upper chamber situates you right in the middle of it. And where "I believe" you and your colleagues should not be.

Lepidopteryx said, "However, when the law calls two similar entities by different names, it makes them legally separate entities, and it has been well established that separate is not equal. So to say that a 'registered domestic partnership' is the legal equivalent of a 'marriage' is disingenuous."

What if we legally called all unions -- regardless of the sexes of the persons involved -- "registered domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" or whatever?

If you are going to complain about a change in the definition of the word 'marriage', then it seems only fair that you should also complain about a change in the word 'citizen' which for thousands of years meant 'grown men only', and for much of that time also meant 'land-owning, grown men only'.

As for the "creator's good design", I note that homosexuality is also prevalent in nature (recent studies shows significant percentages of sheep prefer the same sex, and there was a story a few years back about a same-sex penguin couple of at the NY zoo). That would seem to indicate that it IS in fact, part of the "creator's good design". Since I am personally not the creator, I don't think I am qualified to do much more than speculate about the "creator's good design" or why He/She/It decided that there should be homosexuals. I certainly do not trust the church to do it for me. I'd rather just accept it and move on. Ultimately it has nothing to do with the pathway that Jesus taught (as is evidenced by his not having talked about it).

"(I)t has been well established that separate is not equal. "

Well, it's certainly not a necessary entailment that separateness leads to inequality. It has, in fact, been that way in the US, e.g. segregation in the south. The point remains, however, that it does not logically follow that separate names would entail different legal status.

Cheers,
Dave

re Bishop Wright's suggestion that those wishing to be married outside his church's parameters for marriage find another name for their union:

If the church wishes to call such unions by another name, that is their prerogative.

However, when the law calls two similar entities by different names, it makes them legally separate entities, and it has been well established that separate is not equal.
So to say that a "registered domestic partnership" is the legal equivalent of a "marriage" is disingenuous. Legally, a rose by any other name does not smell as sweet.

Queen writes:

"In any case, I suspect what Wright meant by "human history" was "recorded human history." I think your objection disappears if we read him that way."

My objection can't disappear for the simple fact that Wright isn't talking only about the period of recorded human history, but all of man's existence.

How do I know that? Why, through the title he provided for his column, that's how: "Ignoring the Creator's Original Intent."

Seems clear that if the creator's "original intent" was for men and women to be married that he was perfectly happy watching as men and women went unmarried for over 95% of our species' existence. Or, perhaps you believe that god was indifferent to the plight of humankind for our first 90,000+ years and was reserving his "original intent" until we evolved to a state where he (god) could be bothered to waste a few of his precious, eternal moments on us by imposing the "original intent" of marriage on us a mere 6,000 years ago.

What say you?

Sorry about the multiple posts. That was not intentional.

"By all means, live your life according to your ideals, but do not presume to tell me how to live mine."

I hear and can appreciate what's being said here, but I wonder if the situation is a bit more nuanced than a mere "you do your thing and leave me to do mine." One point of contention that might be raised (and it might be a cliche point, but you'll have that) is that, in telling someone not to tell you (the use of second-person singular here is generic and not aimed necessarily at the original author of the post) which ideals to live by, you are in fact telling them which ideals he or she should live by. The ideal I am referring to is one whereby people should not impose their ideals on others, but not everyone shares this ideal and demanding that they adhere to it would therefore be an imposition of this ideal.

A further point is that we intuitively wouldn't say the same thing to someone criticizing Hitler or Stalin. Indeed, most of us would tend to esteem anyone who had the courage to tell these two that what they had done was wrong. Put another way, if Hitler were alive today and were to say "it's just your ideal that genocide is wrong, and you shouldn't impose that on me," most of us would, at least, say this is just plain wrong and he needs to be locked up and punished for this. This is an extreme example, but sometimes those are needed to get the point across.

I should make it clear that I am not in complete disagreement with the sentiment being expressed by the quote. I am merely trying to make the point that the situation is not so simple as just allowing everyone to live by their own ideals.

Cheers,
Dave

"By all means, live your life according to your ideals, but do not presume to tell me how to live mine."

I hear and can appreciate what's being said here, but I wonder if the situation is a bit more nuanced than a mere "you do your thing and leave me to do mine." One point of contention that might be raised (and it might be a cliche point, but you'll have that) is that, in telling someone not to tell you (the use of second-person singular here is generic and not aimed necessarily at the original author of the post) which ideals to live by, you are in fact telling them which ideals he or she should live by. The ideal I am referring to is one whereby people should not impose their ideals on others, but not everyone shares this ideal and demanding that they adhere to it would therefore be an imposition of this ideal.

A further point is that we intuitively wouldn't say the same thing to someone criticizing Hitler or Stalin. Indeed, most of us would tend to esteem anyone who had the courage to tell these two that what they had done was wrong. Put another way, if Hitler were alive today and were to say "it's just your ideal that genocide is wrong, and you shouldn't impose that on me," most of us would, at least, say this is just plain wrong and he needs to be locked up and punished for this. This is an extreme example, but sometimes those are needed to get the point across.

I should make it clear that I am not in complete disagreement with the sentiment being expressed by the quote. I am merely trying to make the point that the situation is not so simple as just allowing everyone to live by their own ideals.

Cheers,
Dave

"By all means, live your life according to your ideals, but do not presume to tell me how to live mine."

I hear and can appreciate what's being said here, but I wonder if the situation is a bit more nuanced than a mere "you do your thing and leave me to do mine." One point of contention that might be raised (and it might be a cliche point, but you'll have that) is that, in telling someone not to tell you (the use of second-person singular here is generic and not aimed necessarily at the original author of the post) which ideals to live by, you are in fact telling them which ideals he or she should live by. The ideal I am referring to is one whereby people should not impose their ideals on others, but not everyone shares this ideal and demanding that they adhere to it would therefore be an imposition of this ideal.

A further point is that we intuitively wouldn't say the same thing to someone criticizing Hitler or Stalin. Indeed, most of us would tend to esteem anyone who had the courage to tell these two that what they had done was wrong. Put another way, if Hitler were alive today and were to say "it's just your ideal that genocide is wrong, and you shouldn't impose that on me," most of us would, at least, say this is just plain wrong and he needs to be locked up and punished for this. This is an extreme example, but sometimes those are needed to get the point across.

I should make it clear that I am not in complete disagreement with the sentiment being expressed by the quote. I am merely trying to make the point that the situation is not so simple as just allowing everyone to live by their own ideals.

Cheers,
Dave

Mr Mark said, "We KNOW that humans procreated during that time, and here we are to prove it. But did, they 'marry?' Don't think so."

My point is that you are both overstepping the historical evidence. We can't say either way.

In any case, I suspect what Wright meant by "human history" was "recorded human history." I think your objection disappears if we read him that way.

Dear Queen -

Thanks for making my point for me. I'm more liberal in my assessment, allowing perhaps 8,000 years of human existence where "marriage" may have been a mindful activity of humans.

But my point is that for NT Wrights' claim that marriage has been around for the "vast majority of human history," that marriage would have to have been a human endeavor for at least 51,000 to 101,000 years, and there is no archaeological evidence that would support such a view. We KNOW that humans procreated during that time, and here we are to prove it. But did, they "marry?" Don't think so.

Mr Mark says, "Humans have been around for about 100,000 to 200,000 years. The concept of 'marriage' has been around for no more than 8,000 years, tops."

I suppose it depends on how you define marriage, but even assuming you're using a common law-ish definition, you have no basis whatsoever on which to put your hard limit on the antiquity of it since recorded history doesn't even go back that far. There simply is no record. Moreover, marriage is strongly represented in all the ancient history we do have (starting c. 4000 BCE) and from the earliest records in a diversity of cultures.

"But for the vast majority of human history across cultures and geography, and for all the great religious traditions, 'marriage' and its equivalent words in different languages has referred to the (intentionally lifelong) union of a man and a woman."

Excuse me?

Humans have been around for about 100,000 to 200,000 years. The concept of "marriage" has been around for no more than 8,000 years, tops.

Ergo, for the vast majority of human existence (as opposed to recorded history) across cultures and geography," marriage didn't exist. Didn't exist for roughly 92% OF HUMAN EXISTENCE.

Unless, of course, one chooses to believe the Biblical fables and timelines as to when humans first appeared on Earth.

If your god created everything, then your god created homosexual animals, including humans, as well.

Your god's intent is therefore clear. Why must you fight against it bishop? Do you know better than your own god?

Bishop Wright says, "The state is involved in marriage because it is a basic building block of society and it is for the health of the whole community that it is clear who is bonded to whom."

But from what I've read, in Jesus' day most marriages were more akin to what we call common law marriage, begun without even religious ceremony but simply with an agreement between the husband and the woman's father, an optional period of betrothal, and a shacking up. Some Rabbis even suggested that couples copulate during their betrothal period when they were not yet living together. Certainly the wedding at Cana (John 2) reflects that there were more organized celebrations, too, but my point is that marriage has not always been "institutionalized" in the manner to which we are accustomed, and the state was not always involved.

I'm with you on the creational intent being pretty clear here, but living in a pluralist society means, I think, that we have to accept some things that we may think are wrong. If society as a whole still thought homosexuality was wrong, I wouldn't favor recognition of same-sex unions (calling it "marriage" is a separate can of worms), but the tide has turned. (For part of the story why, see the fascinating episode of _This American Life_ called "81 Words" http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=204 .)

This change may reflect our slide into polyamorous relationships (cf. http://volokh.com/posts/1210877596.shtml ), and perhaps even the implosion of the moral order underlying Western culture, if some chicken littles are right. But even if they are, we Christians need to concentrate on the battle from the bottom up (persuading people's hearts and minds), not top down (writing legislation to enforce an unpopular view). The debate on abortion provides an analogous situation: we need to be concentrating resources on the ground in places like the US's "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" rather than in focusing to overturn Roe v. Wade. Overturning Roe is a commendable goal, but it gets too much attention and resources and even if it succeeds, it won't solve the problem (abortion would simply return to the states, many of which would keep it legal and thus available to most people).

I'd prefer a solution like in Susan M. Shell's "The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage" (_The Public Interest_, Issue #156, Summer 2004), which called for a broader legal allowance for marriage-like unions, e.g., between two elderly sisters. It sidesteps the issue of legality and terminology since it takes the state out of the one-woman-one-man business and puts it in the legal-union-of-any-kind business. This solution is still prone to the slippery slope into polyamity etc., but it keeps the state out of church affairs, which I like.

"because the church is passionately interested in the reflection of the creator's good design and intent in every aspect of life"

Curiously there are infinite variations of the church's understanding of the creator's intent and yet each steadfastly cling to an arrogant ideal that we must all conform to their understanding, when we can not even all agree on whether there is a creator at all. By all means, live your life according to your ideals, but do not presume to tell me how to live mine.